Street Smart

I had a completely different topic in mind for this week, but when there were calls to silence me I felt obligated to respond. Thanks to the readers who wrote in support of this column.

What is it about the truth or an opposing opinion that makes some people so incredibly angry? A couple of readers recently expressed their outrage at my column and went so far as to say I should stop writing. Both readers said that my column was divisive. One said that my column included inflammatory bullying and that I was deriding those who do not agree with me. The other stated that I provided only a glossed over misrepresentation of the Mueller report. Both readers took exception to, and based their opinions on my April 25 column so let’s look at that.

Before I do that though, let me explain how this whole process works for me. I get topic ideas from a variety of sources. Some people email me their ideas. Some call me and others just pass on ideas when we talk. Sometimes the news is my source. After determining a topic, I read everything I can (from dozens of sources) so I’m certain I’m working with factual information. Once I feel satisfied that I understand the issue, I form an opinion and then write about it. I’m limited in number of words due to allocated space. This makes it difficult sometimes to be as detailed as I might like on certain topics. It’s important also to note that my opinions are nearly always filtered through my personal experience (more on that below).

All that said, let’s look at the April 25 column.

I wrote; “Mueller had an enormous, tremendously, experienced team who conducted an extensive investigation. He found no evidence of collusion. Attorney General Barr and Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein conducted a thorough review of the report and determined there was no obstruction of justice. Democrats aren’t happy about that and are going to pick the report apart trying to find holes.”

That is not a “glossed over misrepresentation.” It’s simply a very basic explanation of what actually occurred! It was never intended to be a biopsy of the Mueller Investigation. It was only intended to provide basic foundational information before I began expressing my opinion.

I then wrote this about the D.C. Democrats; “Unfortunately for them, the fact is (absent new evidence, which is doubtful considering the resources Mueller had at his disposal), this thing is over.” This is where my opinion based on personal experience comes into play. I’ve conducted hundreds of investigations. It is completely accurate to say that, once a determination is made based on an investigation, and unless new evidence is somehow uncovered, that investigation is over. I then said, “Come to terms with that and move on!” Again, that’s just my opinion. I wrote that because I believe real progress (maybe even bi-partisan progress!) could be achieved on issues such as health care and immigration, if we moved past the Mueller Investigation. I wondered what it would look like if everyone was to work together and build on President Trump's considerable accomplishments. I’m failing to see what about that is divisive.

I mentioned in my introductory column that I’m a pretty direct person. I grew up in a rough neighborhood and then worked in a rough profession. I’m pretty aggressive and say what’s on my mind. I make no apology for that. However, it’s never my intent to hurt anyone’s feelings. That said, if “bullying” means “don’t confront me with the truth or offer an opinion contrary to mine” then I guess I’m guilty! I’d suggest maybe toughen up a little and understand that, like it or not, there are opposing opinions out there. Additionally, contrary to what some seem to believe, I like opposing views! I learn that way and recognize that it is entirely possible that I might have missed a valid point. One reader wrote in part about my column, “…and opposing viewpoints are worthless.” I find that interesting because in the controversial April 25 article (and others), I actually asked for opposing views. I wrote, “I truly would like to have one of the “anti-Trumpers” explain to me why Democrats are so opposed to working with this President. I would love to read a well reasoned explanation driven by factual information, not emotion.” So far nobody has done that despite the open invitation. Why not? I think it’s simply because facts can’t be negated or effectively argued against. As I’ve said before, we don’t have to like the truth, but we do have to deal with it! It is what it is!

It was suggested that my column be dropped from The Ledger. I find real irony in that statement because the same writer claims to be so concerned with “saving our democracy.” Help me understand that logic. Censoring a writer you disagree with is somehow “saving our democracy?” Sounds more like fascism to me! Maybe a refresher on the Constitution and that pesky little First Amendment is in order. The real threat to our democracy is the socialism embraced by the extreme left of the Democrat Party.

I’m not trying to hurt anybody’s feelings or change any minds. My column is an opinion column and I intend to continue expressing mine. I hope to do so effectively, and I can’t help but do it aggressively. That’s my nature. If you disagree with my opinion… great! That’s the whole idea. Write a well reasoned rebuttal, submit your point of view and open the debate. Get the conversation started. If you’re uncomfortable submitting a written response but still dislike my column, there’s one other option. Don’t read it!

Blaine Blackstone is a retired Los Angeles Police Sergeant who enjoys the simpler life in Thompson Falls. He can be reached by email at [email protected].